This idea that self-defense claims can’t be refuted by witness testimony is so ludicrous to me that I think it deserves its own GD thread – Steophan, please join us… I’d truly like to better understand your argument, strange as it seems to me.
No, I’m in favour of laws that would prevent that, by allowing the black people threatened with murder to defend themselves. Exactly as I’m in favour of white people defending themselves against black people, or any other irrelevant combination of skin colours.
I’m pretty sure your opinion on what “everyone knows” is as faulty as your memory of your own posts. You’re not exactly a mystery with your posting habits.
But seriously, why are you so scared? You know what you’ve posted, right? There’s no danger in making a harmless little bet if you’re sure to win, and precious little harm even if you lose. Grow a pair.
If I’d made the claim that they can’t be refuted by witness testimony, I’d be interested. My point is not that, and not limited to self defence. No conviction should rest on witness testimony that could be biased.
That’s not difficult to understand. You may disagree with it (although I can’t imagine why anyone would), but it’s in no way hard to understand.
The Dunn conviction was not solely based on witness testimony that could be biased.
Please enlighten me further in the GD thread.
[quote]
Yeah, it’s probably just coincidence that you want to throw out the rule of law every time a white person is convicted of a crime against a black person.
[quote=“Evil_Economist, post:646, topic:694480”]
No, I want the law to protect their right to defend themselves. No idea why anyone would want otherwise, to be honest.
[quote]
Yeah, it’s probably just coincidence that you want to throw out the rule of law every time a white person is convicted of a crime against a black person. You’re the guy who throws a screaming fit every time someone else posts something that could be read as throwing out the rule of law, right? Glad you were able to find a reason to excuse that behavior when it’s you doing it.
Well, to be fair, he did play loud music that upset white folk.
I want the law to protect the right of people (of whatever hue) to defend themselves. It’s not complicated, and I’ve yet to see a good argument why the law shouldn’t do that.
No you want the law to protect the right of white people to get away with murdering black people. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the laws were changed to make it easier to get away with murder by pretending it was self-defense, and a bunch of black people started murdering white people and getting away with it, you’d be the first one here arguing that we should ignore the rule of law.
No one is suggesting that the law shouldn’t protect the right of people to defend themselves. Allowing juries to evaluate the claims of witness does not harm the right of people to defend themselves.
Well played sir!
CMC fnord!
You’re an outright liar. I don’t want anyone to get away with murder, but it’s necessary that some people do, in an imperfect world, to protect the rights of people to defend themselves, and to have a fair trial. Regardless of colour.
Trials are not fair if juries are not free to evaluate the testimony of witnesses and the accused as potentially true or false.
So, the jury should feel free to convict solely on the testimony of a witness? I’m fairly sure I’ve read you argue otherwise, when the witness is a police officer and the defendant a black person - and if you have argued such, you’d be entirely correct.
A jury should not be free to convict solely on the testimony of any witness, and should disregard the testimony of a potentially biased witness where it is not supported by other evidence. What about that do you find unreasonable?
If you think I’ve made such an argument, provide a cite.
I think juries should be able to evaluate testimony as potentially true or false beyond a reasonable doubt. They don’t have to believe witnesses, but they should have the option of believing them if they evaluate the statements in concert with the other evidence as convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because it means that the jury must ignore witness testimony. How could that be reasonable at all?
I believe that juries should hear the testimony, and use their own judgment as a jury to determine if, in concert with the totality of the evidence, it convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt. You’re suggesting that they must not consider the witness testimony. How could it be reasonable at all that they have to ignore it?
Yeah, it’s just a coincidence that the only laws you care enough to post about are being discussed because they either allowed a white person to get away with murdering a black person or resulted in the conviction of a white person for murdering a black person.
Oh, and your opinion of those laws is entirely predictable based on whether or not it allowed a white person to get away with murdering a black person.
Oh, and every black person you ever talked about on this board, you’ve called them a thug or a criminal (though now that you’ve mentioned Miles Davis without calling him a thug, I guess that particular chain has been broken, so good job, I guess).
And you’ve all in favor of the rule of law, except when it results in a white person being convicted of murdering a black person, and then suddenly the rule of law is wrong.
And you’re all in favor of self-defense, except when a black person is defending himself against a white person.
And you believe in “innocent until proven guilty,” except when you’re accusing a black person of crimes. Best if they’re dead, so then you can accuse them of any crime you like!
But you’re not racist because you have a Miles Davis t-shirt!
No, I’m fully in favour of that as well.
We are discussing the situation when there is no other evidence. A conviction should not rest on potentially biased witness testimony, as such testimony by definition cannot convince beyond reasonable doubt.
Stop bringing up different, irrelevant circumstances as though they matter. Or, show the evidence that speaks to Dunn’s state of mind not being reasonable fear of death or serious injury when he shot Davis. Prove that he did not see something that a reasonable person could have believed to be a shotgun.